Castlevania Dungeon Forums
The Castlevania Dungeon Forums => General Castlevania Discussion => Topic started by: Nagumo on August 30, 2013, 01:45:29 PM
-
Someone at the Castlevania wiki posted an interview with someone (I'm not exactly sure who, but I'm guessing someone who worked on CVIII) from 2ch. He said he first doubted the legitimacy of the interview with later changed his mind in hindsight of what was revealed in the interview with SCIV's director.
http://castlevania.wikia.com/wiki/Talk:Castlevania_III:_Dracula%27s_Curse (http://castlevania.wikia.com/wiki/Talk:Castlevania_III:_Dracula%27s_Curse)
Here it is:
882: 開発スタッフだけど聞きたいことある？ｗ
Q: 883: ディレクターは誰？ まだコナミにいる？
A: 884: ディレクターは○松さん Kは退職したよ
Q: 885: プロデューサーだかディレクターだか役職は知らないが 実質的に悪魔城伝説という作品を作った人は誰？ あとストーリーとかキャラセリフとかシナリオ書いたのは誰？
A: 887: 基本的に、当時のK社のFC部門はプログラマー担当＋キャラクター担当＋音（別部署から合流）って形でチームを組んでたので、メタルギアの小島君的なクリエイターはいなかった。一人のプログラマーがチームリーダーを担い、ディレクターとして名前が出ることが殆ど。悪魔城伝説に関しては、作品作りは全てチームでの会議。（キャラクター担当者がイメージ作りを引っ張る役目を担うことは多かった。）プレイヤー複数制にしたのは１への回帰＆さらに遊びの幅を広げるにはどうすればいいか？という会議の結果。ストーリーとかセリフとかシナリオ（って言ってもシナリオらしいシナリオってあったっけ？）とかキャラの設定とか、マップ（背景とフロア的なもの）を作ったのは自分です。どこにアイテムや敵を設定するかなどは、完成したマップを見て各担当プログラマーが設定した。
Q: 889: ラルフ・C・ベルモンドのCはクリストファーだったのでは？ ドラキュラ伝説が同時期に出て年表がおかしくなったのは社内打合せ不足？
A: 890-891: > ラルフ・C・ベルモンドのCはクリストファー です。表の資料に書いてあるかどうかは知らないけど。 > ドラキュラ伝説が同時期に出て～ 違うチームが作ってたからじゃないかな。その時はもう自分居なかったし。○松さんはその辺こだわる人じゃないように見えたから、そのせいかもしれない。IGA体制後に関しては全く知らない。ちなみに自分、当時若かったんで、チームメンバーにはものすごい迷惑をかけた。イイモノ作りたかっただけだったんだが、今振り返ると、どうしようもない態度とやり方に、申し訳なさと恥ずかしさで顔から火が出そうだ。謝れる機会があれば謝りたい。当時は生意気ばっかり言ってチームの和を乱してすみませんでした。ではまた後日。
Interesting bit: supposedly the "C" in Ralph/Trevor's name is indeed Christopher. I wonder if that means Trevor and Christopher were supposed to be the same character back in those days? I anyone could translate, I would appreciate that very much!
-
My japanese is super basic (still not N3), but I can gather some important things, please correct me if I'm mistaken...
It's a retired artist who worked at Konami.
He says that Kojima was involved, in the times he was with Metal Gear. He designed stages and maps and assembled a team of artists to work all together in the project.
There was some confusion about Cristopher? Maybe? And he separates himself and his game from IGA's concept? He says that IGA was young and that he's sorry for something about the game, or the concept, I don't know what...
Can Shiroi or Nagumo translate it, please?
-
Koutei probably could.
-
The first part says Akamatsu retired from Konami previously. Since the director and producer weren't listed in Belmont's Revenge and the interviewer states he doesn't know who's currently producer or director, it would seem this interview took place around that time. The interviewee joined the Famicom team from another department. Sounds like his explanation was it was a team effort and there was no director per se. He gave input to level design and all that. He said because he wasn't a part of Akamatsu's team, he doesn't know the details.
I don't think Ralph was Christopher. I think it was just coincidental that Christopher had the same name as Ralph's second given name. Bear in mind the Japanese love etymology and linguistics studies. The opening of CV3 shows Ralph praying in front of a giant cross. Christopher means "Christ-bearing", thus signifying that Ralph is a very religious man. Christopher may just have been named in Ralph's honor, or his parents may have simply called him Christopher for the same reasons Ralph's called him Ralph Christopher. Or maybe Ralph Christopher was his ordained title.
-
Can Shiroi or Nagumo translate it, please?
Actually, I don't know much Japanese (yet).
I don't think Ralph was Christopher. I think it was just coincidental that Christopher had the same name as Ralph's second given name.
Nah. Actually, the person who posted the interview on the wiki is also Japanese and he told me that's what it says. The interviewee says according to him that besides working on backgrounds and objects, he worked on the story, dialogue, scenario, and character profiles and that they didn't really care about continuity back in those days.
-
But it names Kojima too, and states that he was also working in Metal Gear.
And it also names Iga at the end and apologizes about some game concept.
That, or my basic japanese is very, very basic :P (that's more probable).
But I could swear Kojima, Metal Gear and Iga are there in the text.
-
This is interesting. But, this cannot be treated as official source.
*From Japanese anonymity BBS "2channel" Akumajo Densetsu (Castlevania III: Dracula's Curse) topic. June 5, 2012
(I don't have English knowledge. I'm using machine translation)
Would be Akumajo Densetsu stuff: I am the development staff. Is there any question? [laughter]
Q: Who is director? Is the person still in KONAMI?
A: Director is *matsu-san (possible Akamatsu). Already left K (possible KONAMI).
Q: Producer or director? I don't know the post. Who is the person who made a work called Akumajo Densetsu substantially?
A: Fundamentally, FC section of K company of those days had constructed the team by the programmer, character designer, and sound designer (It joins from its another post). There was no creator like Metal Gear Kojima-kun. It was almost the case that a one programmer becomes a team leader and the credit of the name is carried out as a director. About the Akumajo Densetsu, it performed all making a work at the meeting of the team. (The character designer bore the duty which tows making an image in many cases) It is a result of meeting whether what I should do with having used player two or more systems for expanding the width of play further with revolution to the 1st work. I made story, dialogue, scenario (But did the appropriate scenario exist?), character profile, and map (level design). Where an item and an enemy are set up looked at the completed map, and each person in charge programmer set up.
Q: Ralph C Belmondo's C was Christopher?
A: Yes. I don't know whether it is written on official data.
Q: Chronology has been destroyed when Dracula Densetsu (Castlevania: The Adventure) came out at the period. Is the shortage of arrangements in the company in this a reason?
A: I think that it is a reason that the different team was making it. I was not in the company any longer then. *matsu-san seemed not to be those who are scrupulous about such things in me. It may be a reason. I don't know after IGA's kingdom era (possible mean IGA's timeline and canon).
-
Well, there you have it. Ralph = Christopher confirmed. This is very interesting.
I think Akumajo Densetsu and Dracula Densetsu were mutually exclusive at the time. They both adapted the "Legend of the Hero Christopher", but in two very different ways. Being developed at the same time without any communication between teams led to them completely ignoring each other. This is supported by the Japanese manuals which both act like they are the first story of a Belmont fighting Dracula. IGA must have changed it later to make it all fit, yet the inconsistency remained.
Ironically, this made the English CV3 manual correct at the time since it claimed the game took place about 100 years before CV1. Also, this means the NES games were a self-contained trilogy back in those days.
-
Well, there you have it. Ralph = Christopher confirmed. This is very interesting.
This is interesting. But, this cannot be treated as official source.
-
I'm aware of that. However, I trust the source since it sounds legitimate and it adds up with what we know already. Besides, I actually encourage speculating in this thread.
-
I wouldn't, really, because 2chan is hardly different from 4chan. I remember when a 4channer claiming to be a Konami insider close to IGA said the next game was going to be 1999 and a bunch of other stuff. Instead, it was OoE. So I wouldn't trust any anonymous source, no matter how much they jive their info with already common knowledge. Not that there's anything truly, really earth-shattering here other than possibly knowing Trevor's middle name.
-
Again, nothing in what the programmer/artist said suggests Ralph and Christopher were the same person.
"Ralph C. Belmondo's 'C' was Christopher?"
"Yes, although I don't know whether it was written in the official data."
Nobody said Ralph and Christopher were the same person, they said Ralph's middle initial stood for Christopher. One of our presidents was John Quincy Adams; that doesn't mean John Adams and Quincy Adams are the same person -- his name's not even Quincy Adams, it's John Adams (with Quincy as his second given name). Even in the original Japanese text that's what it appears is all he is saying.
The descriptions of the two games (CV3 and Adventure) are nearly identical, granted. And while I am certain the series got retconned to match IGA's story-telling abilities, it does say Trevor fought Dracula more than 100 years before Simon and that Christopher fought Dracula 100 years before Simon, if one is to believe that Trevor actually lived 200 years before Simon. If Dracula was resurrected before he actually became a demon and was still a devil worshiper or sorcerer, then the 100-year rule wouldn't apply to him just yet. For all we know, Dracula never actually died. Trevor lopped off his head and it continued to move around, then turned into a multi-headed creature. Was that really Dracula? The dude was a powerful sorcerer that had control over various demons and could summon Pazuzu. If he was dead, how did he summon Pazuzu? So in that regard, I think IGA might have taken a bit of a cop-out and would have done better to put Christopher and Trevor closer together. But as it is, "100 years ago" and "more than 100 years ago" are not the same thing and thus Christopher still fits into the timeline as an individual.
-
Since when that strange statue was meant to be Pazuzu? I thought Pazuzu was that Flame Demon in CV3, since he is identical to his HoD appearance.
-
Pazuzu:
(https://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages4.wikia.nocookie.net%2F__cb20080808145958%2Fcastlevania%2Fimages%2F5%2F57%2FDraccv33.gif&hash=ec19ae6c6d1b7092c674a7cccae1dc78d2daa2ae)
(https://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fladyofspiders.files.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F09%2Fpazuzu.jpg&hash=0c951db285387d0e37186b8143951aa727813313)(https://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages1.wikia.nocookie.net%2F__cb20080806165035%2Fmegamitensei%2Fimages%2Fe%2Fea%2FPazuzuSMT2.jpg&hash=98df099b199b3437557fc8e7f278bd886a85e878)
Who else would it be? It ain't Dracula, because this has been Dracula whenever his demonic side came out:
(https://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.consoleclassix.com%2Finfo_img%2FCastlevania_Dracula_X_SNES_ScreenShot3.jpg&hash=2ae8cb09c2fd367079f09cbe3e4dc92b23059dd4)(https://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages4.wikia.nocookie.net%2F__cb20081014061361%2Fcastlevania%2Fimages%2Ff%2Ffc%2FSoma2b.gif&hash=0f62cde6ddd99daae3bde075d8f994bdef21258e)
Dracula has two horns in demon form. The Pazuzu you cited was IGA's Pazuzu. Castlevania has a history of nerfing powerful demons and gods under Dracula's will. Also that Pazuzu has too many horns. He's closer to Baphomet.
(https://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F2%2F25%2FMasons_baphomet.jpg&hash=79cde86ccfe720288d0abc454296347911017bed)
The inclusion of Baphomet in Castlevania could be symbolic of Dracula's Templar influences. Outright calling it Baphomet could lead to religious controversy, whereas Pazuzu would be a little more acceptable since it's okay to be in the presence of Pazuzu (he keeps plagues away). It's possible Dracula wanted to summon Pazuzu in CV3 so that Trevor could kill him and thus Dracula's reign of terror would go unhindered by a demon that would be able to obstruct him.
-
I thought IGA's Pazuzu was based in the Exorcirst, at least that what I've heard here a year ago (I've never watched this movie, I've only watched a part of one of them but I doesnt even know which one of them).
Thanks, these images explain a lot.
-
Dracula's final form in Vampire Killer was a giant painting, in CotM a xenomorph that scooted like it was Fast and Furious, in HoD a giant tentacled skull, and in Haunted Castle a giant head. He's had quite a few demonic forms, so it's taken for granted the final boss in CV3 is his demonic form and not a separate demon.
He's also decapitated in CV1/Chronicles and his remains morph into his true form. It's just to show how powerful he is, and to give the player the false hope that the battle has ended when it's only just begun.
-
Those aren't demonic. Those are alternate forms. The guy is a sorcerer and even after becoming a demon he'd remain a sorcerer. From the time of Simon, his demonic form has been the same and any other demons would not be Dracula himself but demons he ahs summoned or demons that have broken through into his realm.
CV1 is Demonic Dracula. Says so in CV3 and CVA. CV1 Dracula is supposed to morph into a demon. In CV3, he morphed into floating heads apparently, but never morphed into the third boss -- the third boss appeared from the background. Thus it's clear Dracula and the third boss are not one in the same.
-
A giant floating tentacled skull seems pretty demonic to me. I'm not sure what you mean when you try to differentiate between demonic forms and alternate forms. They're all his final forms, whether he's a giant blue bat a la CV1, a giant bela lugosi head like in Haunted Castle, or a red crotch monster like in Bloodlines. I mean in SotN his true form alternated between the Rondo of Blood green demon and a giant throne with xenomorphs on either side. Even Graham had a demonic form consisting of twin pierced angels, and he wasn't even a sorcerer but a priest with a shiv.
-
Maybe he "prossessed" that Pazuzu statue? We've seen he possessing a portrait already. Also in ReBirth he transforms into a strange demonic statue's head.
In HoD its normal that he became that mess, since they are a personification of Dracula's parts (dont ask me where is the ring).
-
Also you can tell it's Pazuzu because the thing's crotch disappears into the shadows. They censored it themselves. (He has a big dong.)
-
In HoD its normal that he became that mess, since they are a personification of Dracula's parts (dont ask me where is the ring).
I think it's supposed to be the eyeball claw for some reason, gao~
Anyways, as was pointed out earlier the giant flame demon that was part of the terrible trio of the mummy and cyclops is pazuzu. It's kind of silly to say 'no that's IGA's pazuzu'. It's no more his pazuzu than arguing that the cyclops is IGA's cyclops because the cyclops in mythology were large otherwise normal looking men with a single eye instead of purple monsters. Also IGA wasn't credited with the enemy design/programming in HoD. Takeda Takeshi, Jun-ichi Inoue, and Shuichi Hirohara were responsible for that, and were behind that particular demon being dubbed Pazuzu in that game, not IGA. The man is not Pixel.
Dracula has two horns in demon form. The Pazuzu you cited was IGA's Pazuzu.
Three horns in Chronicles:
http://www.vgmuseum.com/mrp/CVPics/dracx682.gif (http://www.vgmuseum.com/mrp/CVPics/dracx682.gif)
Four in legacy:
http://www.vgmuseum.com/mrp/CVPics10/lod-uldrac.gif (http://www.vgmuseum.com/mrp/CVPics10/lod-uldrac.gif)
Not that that means anything. Saying that his CVIII final form was really Pazuzu and not Dracula is like saying that in PoR you're fighting Satan, not Dracula, because that form matches Satan's traditional depiction. Anything else is just fan fiction.
EDIT: Arise, Kurt of the past:
(https://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.castlevaniadungeon.net%2FImages%2FWeird%2FHoD%2Fdrac3rd.gif&hash=dd54bbad41d4288d7c3da3faf1970439ac700e28)
He's clearly beaked, too, and not lion-faced.
-
I've always thought it was clear that Trevor's name was Trevor Christopher Belmont and that Christopher was name in honor to him. However the theory that both games told the same story is amazing, as it makes perfect sense, Christopher is name din the CV 1 manual and so III acts as the perfect prequel in a self contained trilogy.
-
I wouldn't, really, because 2chan is hardly different from 4chan. I remember when a 4channer claiming to be a Konami insider close to IGA said the next game was going to be 1999 and a bunch of other stuff. Instead, it was OoE. So I wouldn't trust any anonymous source, no matter how much they jive their info with already common knowledge. Not that there's anything truly, really earth-shattering here other than possibly knowing Trevor's middle name.
4chan is also where details about MoF got leaked, and the same person also correct about them not choosing Julius as the new Belmont in LoS2. So, you can use that argument to support both sides. However, I understand your point. I wouldn't use this as a wiki source or anything.
Again, nothing in what the programmer/artist said suggests Ralph and Christopher were the same person.
"Ralph C. Belmondo's 'C' was Christopher?"
"Yes, although I don't know whether it was written in the official data."
Nobody said Ralph and Christopher were the same person, they said Ralph's middle initial stood for Christopher.
When you think about it logically, I can't see how they could have been anything besides being the same person. Remember, CV3 and CVA were developed alongside each other with no communication between the Famicom team and Gameboy team. Akamatsu's team was not aware of what the Gameboy team was doing besides probably that it was being developed for that system.
Why would they name their protagonist Ralph Christopher Belmont, then? It can't be continuity nod since they didn't know another Christopher Belmont existed, and assuming what the interviewee said is true, they didn't give a damn about continuity back then. Also, why would they choose to let the game take place 200 years before CV1 when they set up a prequel that takes place 100 years before? That doesn't make sense.
I know the manual says "more than a 100 years", but the opening intro just plain says 100. The intention seems pretty clear to me.
Castlevania 3 Translated Original Opening (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gV2xCAkyEtA#)
I also recall a GameCenter CX interview where IGA acknowledges that the storyline of CV3 and CVA had conflicting elements, and that "everybody did whatever they wanted" back then.
GameCenter CX S02E07 - Prince of Persia Part 1 [TV-Nihon] (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xnete7)
Around the 35:00 mark.
-
4chan is also where details about MoF got leaked, and the same person also correct about them not choosing Julius as the new Belmont in LoS2. So, you can use that argument to support both sides. However, I understand your point. I wouldn't use this as a wiki source or anything.
This doesnt shows anything, for real. Everyone that really knows 4chan will know that its full of jokes with truths popping sometimes. The only way to discover if its truth or not for real is if someone talks about it outside 4chan or if they show some sources. We can at least try to believe, but its not enough IMHO.
When you think about it logically, I can't see how they could have been anything besides being the same person. Remember, CV3 and CVA were developed alongside each other with no communication between the Famicom team and Gameboy team. Akamatsu's team was not aware of what the Gameboy team was doing besides probably that it was being developed for that system.
Even so, if we think logically like you said we will know for sure that Trevor=/=Christopher because of the timespan already mentioned here, sources being CV1 and Vampire Killer for MSX IIRC. Belmonts arent shown to have a super ability where they can live more than 100 years and still be young and able to fight and defeat Dracula.[/quote]
Why would they name their protagonist Ralph Christopher Belmont, then? It can't be continuity nod since they didn't know another Christopher Belmont existed, and assuming what the interviewee said is true, they didn't give a damn about continuity back then. Also, why would they choose to let the game take place 200 years before CV1 when they set up a prequel that takes place 100 years before? That doesn't make sense.
It makes sense, they set up a prequel when they launched the first game, without even knowing if it would be successful enough to receive a sequel or prequel. That shows that they wanted to expand in all directions without a specific order. Also they set up a prequel, but they never said that Christopher was the first Belmont to defeat Dracula, if they really wanted it to be the first game they would be more specific.
I know the manual says "more than a 100 years", but the opening intro just plain says 100. The intention seems pretty clear to me.
Castlevania 3 Translated Original Opening (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gV2xCAkyEtA#)
If you really want to follow what the game intro says, Trevor is called Ralph Belmondo, not Ralph C. Belmondo like in the manual.
I also recall a GameCenter CX interview where IGA acknowledges that the storyline of CV3 and CVA had conflicting elements, and that "everybody did whatever they wanted" back then.
GameCenter CX S02E07 - Prince of Persia Part 1 [TV-Nihon] (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xnete7)
Around the 35:00 mark.
Thanks, its like 2 months since we dont use this interview, since I like it here my +1.
IMO if they really wanted it to be Christopher they would have named it Christopher, not Ralph.
-
This doesnt shows anything, for real. Everyone that really knows 4chan will know that its full of jokes with truths popping sometimes. The only way to discover if its truth or not for real is if someone talks about it outside 4chan or if they show some sources. We can at least try to believe, but its not enough IMHO.
I'm not saying because those two things were, this automatically would be as well. That would be faulty reasoning. I was just refuting Hero's argument about it being wrong just because it was from 2ch.
Even so, if we think logically like you said we will know for sure that Trevor=/=Christopher because of the timespan already mentioned here, sources being CV1 and Vampire Killer for MSX IIRC. Belmonts arent shown to have a super ability where they can live more than 100 years and still be young and able to fight and defeat Dracula.
Could you show me what you're refering to?
It makes sense, they set up a prequel when they launched the first game, without even knowing if it would be successful enough to receive a sequel or prequel. That shows that they wanted to expand in all directions without a specific order. Also they set up a prequel, but they never said that Christopher was the first Belmont to defeat Dracula, if they really wanted it to be the first game they would be more specific.
No, I don't buy this. In Vampire Killer's manual (which I'm going to assume had the same story writer as CV1) the legend of Dracula is directly associated with the legend of Christopher. Dracula was sealed by Christopher, and then the legend was born that he would be revived every 100 years. They wouldn't call it the legend of Christopher if he wasn't the first Belmont to seal Dracula. Sure, I suppose you can retcon this, but the important thing is that's what the intention was at the time.
Since ancient times, the Transylvanian people has spoken about the "legend of the hero Christopher". Once in a hundred years, a group of evil men are said to conduct a blass mass during each century to ressurect the devil Dracula at the tower of Colber where he was sealed by the legendary hero. And exactly a hundred years has passed since he was sealed at the Tower of Colbert.
And even if you don't believe that, there's also the fact that CVA quite clearly establishes itself as the first story, which they never would have done if this wasn't the intent of the creators of CV1. Otherwise CVA would have fitted with CV3 without any problems.
If you really want to follow what the game intro says, Trevor is called Ralph Belmondo, not Ralph C. Belmondo like in the manual.
The parts in the intro and the manual about if it's really 100 years before CV1 or not actually conflict with each other, though. Them calling Ralph just Ralph in the intro isn't an issue since they're just leaving out his middle initial. Also, I think they would just have said 200 years if that really was the intent instead of 100 years give or take.
-
CV3 Japanese manual: Over 100 years earlier... (百年余)
CVA Japanese manual: Dracula was still a sorcerer.
Was he still a sorcerer because this was the first time a Belmont confronted him or was he still a sorcerer because when Trevor defeated him, he wasn't actually defeated? If not for the IGA timeline, with both games' Japanese manuals considered, Trevor should be Christopher's father, Trevor failed to kill Dracula, Christopher defeated Dracula when he came back and then sealed him away, then 100 years later Dracula was resurrected as a demon. Trevor we know was in the 1400s, but what we don't know is when Christopher was actually around except by what IGA's crew retconned.
Either way, the real issue isn't whether Chris and Trevor are the same guys (Alucard never helped Christopher and all the games say Alucard, Sypher and Grant helped Trevor anyway, so this is moot discussion), but that Simon appears to have been placed in the wrong era. It seems more likely that Simon lived in the end of the 16th century, not the 17th century. The only way he could logically be living in the 17th century would be... Until I see the Japanese ending of CVA2, it says in the English one Soleiyu continued to fight Dracula even after Christopher had defeated him. So according to CVA2, Dracula still wasn't dead. Unless Trevor, Christopher or Soleiyu presumptuously had a tombstone engraved for Dracula thinking he was dead, according to the ending of a game made canon by IGA's crew, Dracula hadn't yet entered his 100 year cycle by the end of CVA2. That means Soleiyu battled Dracula at least one more time and THEN there was peace for 100 years in the English canon. (Update: In the Japanese ending, it just says he was a vampire hunter. They embellished inappropriately once again in the western version. Konami's western divisions need to learn to stop making up their own shit.)
And I said before, Trevor could have the middle name Christopher and his son could be Christopher if Trevor was a confirmed Catholic; confirmed Catholics had a given name, a Christened name, and a surname. Christopher might have not been confirmed or if he did we'll never know his middle name. Either way, it's not that uncommon for father and son or grandfather and grandson to share the same names. I'm named after my great-grandfathers (both of them) and there's even a tombstone with my name on it ... supposedly I'm already dead.
-
Could you show me what you're refering to?
Vampire Killer manual, I think its on CV1 manual too but Im not sure about that.
No, I don't buy this. In Vampire Killer's manual (which I'm going to assume had the same story writer as CV1) the legend of Dracula is directly associated with the legend of Christopher. Dracula was sealed by Christopher, and then the legend was born that he would be revived every 100 years. They wouldn't call it the legend of Christopher if he wasn't the first Belmont to seal Dracula. Sure, I suppose you can retcon this, but the important thing is that's what the intention was at the time.
They would and they did call it "the legend of Christopher" because at this time Trevor didnt existed yet, he was the first known Belmont at the time to fight him, this doesnt means that he was truly the first. It is liking arguing why they didnt mentioned Alucard or Sypha in this manual or why they didnt show Simon being cursed at the end. These are concepts in work. Their intention seemed to be create a prequel to Simon's adventure, not a first game for this story.
And even if you don't believe that, there's also the fact that CVA quite clearly establishes itself as the first story, which they never would have done if this wasn't the intent of the creators of CV1. Otherwise CVA would have fitted with CV3 without any problems.
Where it says that it is the first story? I've played it only 1 time to beat it and thats all.
The parts in the intro and the manual about if it's really 100 years before CV1 or not actually conflict with each other, though. Them calling Ralph just Ralph in the intro isn't an issue since they're just leaving out his middle initial. Also, I think they would just have said 200 years if that really was the intent instead of 100 years give or take.
What the manual says about the year that the game happens? The manual says 100 years or more than 100 years? It seems that if we try to follow this intro we will be stuck in nonsensical discussion.
-
For easy reference, here are all the translated Japanese manuals stories for CV1, Vampire Killer, CV3 and CVA:
http://www.vgmuseum.com/mrp/cv1/game-castlevania.htm (http://www.vgmuseum.com/mrp/cv1/game-castlevania.htm)
http://www.vgmuseum.com/mrp/vkill/game-vkiller.htm (http://www.vgmuseum.com/mrp/vkill/game-vkiller.htm)
http://www.vgmuseum.com/mrp/cv3/game-castlevaniadc.htm (http://www.vgmuseum.com/mrp/cv3/game-castlevaniadc.htm)
http://www.vgmuseum.com/mrp/cvgb1/game-cvtadvent.htm (http://www.vgmuseum.com/mrp/cvgb1/game-cvtadvent.htm)
"During the middle ages, there was once a peaceful country named Transylvania in Europe. A country which is associated with the legend of Dracula.
'Once in a hundred, the power of Christ is weakened by man filled with evil in their hearts, praying for the ressurection of Dracula, the prince of darkness. And with each ressurection, he becomes more powerful than ever'
The last time Dracula was brought back into this world, the entire world was covered in darkness. With world of darkness now controlled by Dracula's ambitions, a hero named Christopher Belmont set out to defeat him. Christopher defeated Dracula and peace returned to the countryside of Transylvania, at least for another hundred years.
I'll be honest here, CV1's manual supports what you say about Christopher not being the first. However, I think later games blatantly ignore this. So, I think either it was a mistake or they just felt like ignoring it.
Since ancient times, the Transylvanian people has spoken about the "legend of the hero Christopher". Once in a hundred years, a group of evil men are said to conduct a blass mass during each century to ressurect the devil Dracula at the tower of Colbert, where he was sealed by the legendary hero. And exactly a hundred years has passed since he was sealed at the Tower of Colbert.
From the way it's phrased here, it seems to acknowledge Christopher as the first. Otherwise, I think they would have acknowledged more than one Belmont defeated him more. If you don't believe that, there's also this:
"Transylvania, a small country in Europe, is associated even today with a demon's legend. With his powerful evil power, the legacy of Count Dracula has been dreaded by the people. However, no matter how many times Dracula comes back, he never manages to fully change the world into darkness as he is always put away by Simon, a descendant of the Belmont clan. However, the devil Dracula has existed long before his first confrontation. Not as the devil Dracula, but as an evil sorcerer. Count Dracula was a fanatical demon worshipper, who built a dark castle at the outskirts of Transylvania and conducted evil rituals every night. He has summoned several demons from the other world to serve him and he himself has been trying to get eternal life by becoming a demon king possesing evil powers. With each day, Count Dracula's evil powers became more frigtening, as he spread fear and terror to the people of the village. Until one day, a man stood up. It was Christopher, an ancestor of the Belmont family. Christopher rushed to the dark castle. Many demons and traps layed out are waiting for him at the castle. Will he be able to defeat the transformed devil, Count Dracula, as expected?
This makes it quite clear Christopher is the first. There's no other way to interpret it. Even though this was later retconned by IGA, he seems to have just plain ignored what the manual says.
Castlevania III's manual says:
Go back in time more than a hundred years before Simon Belmont's time, when the the battle between Dracula and mankind began."
Which is at odds with the opening intro which says 100 years before Simon. Conclusion: the storyline was a mess and there's no way to know for sure. :P
However, going by what the interviewee said, he mentions two things in his answer: that Ralph's middle name is Christopher, and the fact that CV3 and CVA caused confusion. Since he mentions the two things in the same context, the confusion has to be because of the name thing.
-
I must agree with you, this CVA manual really states Christopher as the first Belmont to battle Dracula and they created a great mess with all this content that you've shown here. Maybe they dont planned Trevor story or it was really meant to be a long forgotten legend?
-
The story line really is a mess.
Lely, I'm going for the long forgotten legend because I don't think that people who make games during that time had an overarching master plan.
Anyway, why was the Ralph renamed Trevor?